That was my goof, besides, as I was typing it I thought if the value for c changed and the gravity permeability change then that would kind of through off the formula because I would have to add a Variable Gr into the mix which would cause indicate a huge variartion from the other force equations.
however, my original idea for finding the gravity permeability was to determine the mass of the aether particle, (that is why c is a logical value for the velocity squared, any other value would be illogical)which after combiing the grav-perm with several constants inot the formula I gave in my previous post gave a value very close to estimations of the ZPE or aether density.
__________________
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? never mind

You do know that the aether theory was disproven a long time ago, and you're trying to bring back a long dead theory. You're going to have to prove why the original experiments to detect an aether were incorrect.

I assume by "aether particle" you actually mean graviton?

As we know one of the 'best' and most succeding theory in lab is Quantum Theory, experimentally it is able to predict reactions of particles. According to quantum theory there is four fundamental forces, and the forces are suppose to have a carrier particle, for example electromagnetic force carrier is photon. And gravity, the weakest force, it's carrier is graviton. As we know graviton has never been detected and so far in quantum theory it is not a must to have graviton for it to work.(another interesting theory: string theory or m-theory)

When I first posted this forum about the constant G i was hoping one could start a conversation about graviton in relation to the constant G (I hope Rick Main is talking about graviton). Although it might seem unwise or a waste of time to talk in detail of a particle that we do not know if it exist, it is actually helpful. Some of us might learn something new and it is a great thing to discuss thoeries where you get corrected within 24 hrs!!! Remember the fathers of atom theorized about atom in detail even before they saw it, they even describe its structure in detail before seeing it.

The original question: What is the constant G, and what is the meaning of its units? Finding its secretes might open a window in understanding Gravity Force.

What is the connection between graviton and constant G?






__________________
“For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will long to return”

As much as I hate quantum physics, it has held up very well to verification. I have to concede that I do believe that there is a graviton particle. However, I don't believe that anybody will ever detect one within my lifetime, or ever for that matter. It is far too weak for us to detect.

Like I said before, though, there is nothing special about the gravitational constant. Its just a constant of proportionality so the units match on both sides of the equation. What would be interesting, is whether or not the constant truely is constant or is dependent on another variable. I've read of at least one cosmology theory with the gravitational constant varying with time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wintermute11


Like I said before, though, there is nothing special about the gravitational constant. Its just a constant of proportionality so the units match on both sides of the equation. What would be interesting, is whether or not the constant truely is constant or is dependent on another variable. I've read of at least one cosmology theory with the gravitational constant varying with time.

---

Please look over my previous replies. I don't want to waste our time repeating something that could be read by just looking at my previous posts. I would just end up copying and pasting what I had already said anyway.

The problem with the graviton theory is that gravity is an incredibly weak force compared to the other three. Detection of a single graviton particle is so far beyond what we can detect that its a pipe dream. I don't mean two or three times weaker, but by many orders of magnitude, i.e. billions and billions. It only takes a small current to produce a magnetic repulsive force equal but opposite in magnitude to the gravitational force of all the matter comprising our earth.

It might be safe to assume that gravitons exist, but don't count on detection within our lifetimes. I'm trying to keep this as lay speak as possible, but believe me, the graviton would be mind boggling difficult to detect.

quote:

---

Remember the fathers of atom theorized about atom in detail even before they saw it,

---

I think that the graviton does exsist as well as all the other force carrying particles. However I don't think of them as particles that are "emmitted" by a body with a certain feld, but rather that all forces are related. The quanta of each particle is the amount of energy that is be carried by an aether particle. That is to say each aether particle is like a a bucket, each bucket can be filled with a certain amount of energy (frequency dependent) no more, no less. These little buckets pass energy to each other. This passing between buckets appears as photons gravitons and other force particles. BTW the reason the michelson-Morely experiment didn't work was they where trying to look for the aether flowing by the earth as the earth went through space. however if gravity effects the aether then the distorions of movement might be cancelled out and they would not have detected anything.
__________________
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? never mind

I believe gravitons do exists(like wintermute11 i don't know if we will ever detect it in our lifetime unless some new technology comes out), i believe it is not a waste of time theorizing about graviton structure because it is helpful.
Rick Main,
I agree with u that gravitons are "...not particles that are "emmitted" by a body with a certain feld, but rather that all forces are related." And since gravity force is said to be the dominant force and likely the first force to be formed in the begining of our universe therefore gravitons would likely be the first particles to be formed at the begining of our universe. Since all forces are related(not yet proven) therefore all forces come after gravity force, these other forces become stronger due to increase of mass. I think graviton is likely to be the basic elementary particle, therefore it would be hard to detect it. If it is the basic elementary particle then every other matter is made of graviton that is why gravity is the dominant force even affecting a photon. I picture a photon as a way our universe transfer energy, or a bundle of gravitons traveling the highest(?) velocity .
__________________
“For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will long to return”

jam,
Here's some fun reading: "The Constant of Gravitation" by Dr. Harold Aspden
http://www.energyscience.co.uk/2000/ES2002.html , with other related papers.

Also: Discover Mag's "Nailing Down Gravity" at:
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-03/cover/

My own work took me into a somewhat different direction, where Gravity is a "state" of the vacuum unmodified by energy, where this state is measured by how mass results with a proton-proton gravitational constant "g", with a resulting conversion of G into an equation that states: Newton's gravity squared is equal to a proton to proton gravitational constant times speed of light squared times pi squared.

In equation format, it looks like this, though I do not know why this seems to work:

G^2 = g c^2 pi^2

where G=6.67x10^-11 m^3.kg^-1.s^-2 (Newton's G)
g=~5x10^-39 (proton to proton gravitational constant)
c=3x10^8 m.s^-1
pi=3.14...

When you multiply it out and take the square root of G^2, you come up with approx. 6.67x10^-11, though I don't know why.

This equation suggests that Newton's G has a pi built in, and that "g" may be a variable depending upon where it is measured, but that's a long story which has not gained universal acceptance... actually virtually no acceptance! It all has to do with something I called the Axiomatic Equation which shows how electromagnetic energy and gravity interact... never mind.

You might see more of this on another thread on Space-Talk at:
http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=17854
with other related links showing what "g" is, in answer to Wintermute's.

What this equation seems to say is that Gravity is a constant where it is being measured, but may not be the same constant in other energy environs if there is either more or less energy being put out by the local star. In the environment of "dead" stars, G becomes very great indeed, by this reasoning, such as so-called neutron stars... at least, that's the theory that gave birth to the above equation.

Hope this gives you something to chew on, if not the answer itself. Have fun... we all do! Gravity is still uncharted territory, up for land grabs, where victory goes to the bold.

C2

Ps: I should add that in rereading the posts, there seems to be some idea that G is a "fudge factor". I do not think this is true, though it is true for some other constants. Newton's G is actually a measurable force, one that cannot be shielded, nor does it interact with positive or negative charges. And I am quite certain this is true, or else I'd better fasten my seat belt and clamp my chair to the floor!

[Edited by Coppernicus2 on 10/18/03 at 06:16]
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.

Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.

quote:

---

in answer to Wintermute's.

---